C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal filed by defendants arises out of a suit for permanent injunctior restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac. 1. 00 of agricultural land in s. No. 81/3 of Kudduvalasa Village. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff died and the respondents herein were brought on record as his legal representatives. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit property and that he executed a nominal sale deed dated 6-7-1970 (Ex. B-1) in favour of the first defendant who was his close friend, apprehending that the plaintiff might lose some of his lands in view of the impending Land Ceiling Legislation. It was the further case of the plaintiff that on the same date the first defendant executed an agreement of reconveyance (Ex. A-5) in his favour admitting the said facts and promising to reconvey the suit property to him whenever demanded. It was also the case of the plaintiff that the sale deed ex. B-1 was without any consideration and it was never intended to be acted upon and that he himself continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. On account of certain disputes, which arose between them. Subsequently, the defendants unlawfully began to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence he filed the suit.

( 2 ) THE defendants resisted the suit contending that Ex. B-1 sale deed was an out and out sale deed fully supported by consideration and that possession of the land was delivered to the first defendant on the date of the sale deed and that ever since the defendants themselves have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property. The defendants also denied the truth and validity of the alleged agreement of reconveyance Ex. A-5. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The trial Court found that Ex. B-1 sale deed was only a nominal sale deed and it was not acted upon and that the plaintiff himself was in possession on the suit property. It also found Ex. A-5 to be true. On the said findings the trial Court decreed the suit and the same was confirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court.

( 3 ) SRI T. S. Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal assailed the judgments of the Courts below on several grounds. He firstly contended that the Courts below committed an illegality in holding that Ex. B-1 was a nominal sale deed even though there was no issue regarding the same. He also contended that the execution of Ex. A-5 was not proved by any legal or reliable evidence inasmuch as the scribe and attester of ex. A-5 who were examined as P. Ws. 2 and 3 respectively, are close relations of the defendants and as such they are interested witnesses. He further contended that the suit for bare injunction without praying for cancellation of the sale deed Ex. B-1 and without seeking the relief of specific performance of Ex. A-5 is not maintainable. He further submitted that the relief of specific performance is also barred by time. He finally submitted that Ex. B-1 and A-5 are hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act as they are forbidden by law and opposed to public policy and if permitted they will defeat the provisions of Land Ceiling legislation.

( 4 ) ON the other hand Sri e. S. Ramachandramurthy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the suit for injunction based on possession is perfectly maintainable and there is no need or necessity for the plaintiff to seek a declaration of title of cancellation of Ex. B-1 or even specific performance of ex. A-5. If the first defendant claims title under Ex. B-1 and wants any relief on the basis of Ex. B-1 it is for him to file a suit. He also submitted that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on the question of possession and also as rega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document